7

Chapter I

A Contemporaneous Theoretical Profile of Ecological Communication and SomeNew Avenues

When I initiated this project in 1998, it was possible to review first-hand themajority of formal, documented efforts that declared themselves as having something to

do with ecological or environmental communication (EC). Since then, however, the

scenario has continued to changed dramatically. A pointer to that change is found in thefact that I was not able even to go through all EC sites on the Internet on February 10,

2003, even though I spent one full night on surfing them: The URLs were easily in theupper hundreds! In light of this quick and massive proliferation of the EC enterprise (or

popularization of the term anyway), I have had to quit believing that I could provide a

complete, or exhaustive, account of it—which would also be clinically honest to itsdiverse constitutive particulars. A parallel irritating problem that has accompanied my

research has to do with the expectation to define the topic of the research prior toundertaking or reporting the research itself. While a measure of this problem must be

present in any research, in the case of EC the problem is perhaps compounded on account

of EC’s outrageously amorphous constitution and pluralistic, non-definitive origins as adiscourse (in addition to the presence of its non-academic, and in that sense, extra-

discursive and independent, specters).

1. The Definitional ConundrumIn short, I am faced with two co-dependent problems here: scope and definition.

That said, there is also an accompanying source of relief through this linguistic and

conceptual distress: To date, and to my knowledge, we do not have a single study that

could be said to provide us with a comprehensive survey of EC literatures while alsoaddressing seriously the issue of EC’s definition.1 On that count, I could say that when it

comes to defining EC or outlining its purview, praxis has dominated theory within thediscourse. Hence, academicians that have tried to define EC have mostly done so

retrospectively and/or discursively: as a matter of catching up with, or taking stock of,

the increasing focus on the (vast) theme of environment within the (vast) sector ofcommunication. For example, Andrew Pleasant et al., the authors of the article “The

8

Literature of Environmental Communication,” candidly admit that “it is difficult to define

the field without lapsing into a circular definition,” and then choose to define it anywayby “what it has done.”2 However, for the sake of having a functional sense before

presenting their research, Pleasant et al. adopt half a sentence from an official statementof the Environmental Communication Commission of the National Communication

Association (NCA) of the US, and refer to EC as “the link between communication

practices and environmental affairs.”3

In the above article, Pleasant et al. provide a citation analysis of peer-reviewed,

English-language, EC related academic articles primarily published in the United States:They decide the topical scope of their analysis based upon keyword searches on selected

electronic databases and statistical analysis thereof. The looseness of the definition of EC

as a field of study is affirmed further in their plea to establish a journal devoted to EC, asfollows:

This bibliography shows a lot of diversity, with articles on topics as

disparate as risk communication, science communication, disasters,interpersonal communication, rhetoric, and much more. We ask the

question: Would the existence of a journal titled “EnvironmentalCommunication” improve the growth, development, and dissemination of

environmental communication research? The answer, inevitably, seems to

be yes. How will a risk communication scholar become familiar with thework of the rhetorician? How will those interested in science

communication learn about media effects research on the environment?Although any scholar interested in cross-disciplinary work will have to

voyage around the indices to some extent, an environmental

communication oriented journal does seem to us to be a missing piece.4

In their concluding remarks, Pleasant et al. also opine that EC literature “has

grown phenomenally, and seems poised to continue this growth” despite the lack ofinternal coordination among the researchers; they also note that “[w]hile no single journal

predominates, a few in risk, science, and some in communication are notable.”5 At its

profoundest, Pleasant et al.’s report is a statistical lowdown on North American academic

9

publications that fall broadly under the rubric of EC; at its most practical, it is an appeal

to found an independent journal exclusively dedicated to the theme.6

Pleasant et al.’s article apart, many efforts at defining EC appear only on the

Internet, and typically occur as a casual paragraph or two descriptively introducingacademic programs or bibliographies on EC (and environmental studies generally).7 This

volume of “working” definitions is only upheld, as it were, by the adoption of the label of

“environmental communication” by a wide variety of non-academic bodies tocommunicate about their organization- or business-specific activities that they believe are

related to the environment.8 What that means in real terms is that most availableacademic definitions of EC are not, and were not, intended to lay down the law for what

must constitute EC and what should stay out of it; on the contrary, they display a

concerted effort at adopting broad frames of scholarly reference. As such, the definitionsseem to have been driven by the twin realisms of communication as a social activity and

of environmental activism, inherent interdisciplinarity of the academic disciplines of

environmental and communication studies, and ethic of inclusiveness that hastraditionally characterized those disciplines. That said, one could discern in the

definitions specific professional orientations of the definer in reference to thephenomenon. Let me provide a quick cross-section below:

• Northern Arizona University’s Environmental Communication Resource Center

(ECRC), established in 1996, defines ECas the communication of environmental messages to audiences by all

means and through all channels. Environmental Communication may beconsidered a process which involves both communicators and audiences

and is achieved through effective message delivery, interactive listening,

and public discussion and debate. We envision such communication as thefoundation for establishing relationships between people and the

environment and as a means for enhancing environmental literacy andsustainable environmental practices.9

Notably, environment is an implicit entity, a given, in ECRC’s definition, which makes

the practical dimension of the process of communication about the environment as theinstitutional focus. As such, EC is the process, read mechanism and infrastructure,

10

through which humans can sensitively and sensibly relate to the environment. While

both “communicators” and “audiences” of necessity exclude anything other than humans,the real communication, as far as ECRC’s definition goes, is between nature and humans.

Moreover, nature is not so much a product of a transaction internal to the social systemas it is a party in its own right; more likely it is the significant—often the

endangered—Other of the human “communicator-audience combine.” Accordingly,

questions related to environmental ethics, sustainability, and eco-hazards are the centraltake-off points for ECRC, and EC is not just any process of communication: It is the

process that must be discussed within the implicit normative parameter of“effectiveness.” Hence: “Communication about environmental issues should be a

priority for all societies in a collective effort to address issues such as overpopulation,

resource depletion and pollution, all of which are leading to widespread ecologicaldegradation.”10 On the whole, then, ECRC’s definition betrays an activist slant.

• Many other definitions, however, take a broad, open view of the field, stopping short of

locating themselves within any particular organizational agendas. An example here isMark Meisner’s definition, given on behalf of the Environmental Communication

Network (ECN):Environmental Communication is communication about environmental

affairs. You know, things like how the media cover environmental issues,

the rhetoric of environmental debates and decision making, the discoursearound how to solve environmental problems. Environmental

communication is all of the many forms of communication (interpersonal,group, public, organizational, mass, etc.) that are engaged in that they

intersect with the social debate about environmental issues and problems.

Studying environmental communication means studying thecommunication processes involved in environmental affairs.11

Apparently, while becoming an effective communicator of ecological issues is anobjective for its participants, the chief objective for ECN—a forum that originated from a

1991 Conference on the Discourse of Environmental Advocacy—is to account for the

quality and nature of environmental rhetoric generally.

11

• The Rutgers University’s Center for Environmental Communication (CEC), established

in 1986, stresses more of an empirical approach to the study of EC in its goal “to bringtogether university investigators to provide a social science perspective to environmental

problem-solving.”12 The aspect of communication, in this case, is focused on theproblems of the environment—whereby communication, based upon empirical research,

is understood to provide solutions.

• The University of Cincinnati’s Center for Environmental Communication Studies(CECS), established in 1998, seeks to link EC more narrowly with health related issues

and to balance research with political and scientific activism. The CECS describes itself“as an interdisciplinary research and service organization dedicated to the study of

communication processes and practices in environmental and health policy contexts.”13

Focusing on the public-relations aspect of environmentalism with respect to humanhealth, the CECS’s agenda

includes the design, analysis, and evaluation of informational and

persuasive messages and campaigns produced by and addressed toindividuals and institutions which pertain to environmental and human

health risk contexts and controversies; the analysis and evaluation ofcommunication processes within environmental and health-related

organizations; and the design, facilitation, and evaluation of processes of

stakeholder involvement in risk-based decision-making.14

2. EC as a Field of Study Versus as a Conceptual PhenomenonIn light of the above definitional variety and the previously-mentioned sense of

situational or pragmatic realism behind it, I do not see much point in making an elaborate

intervention myself in this definitional conundrum. For the theorization of EC, however,I would like to distinguish between defining something as a field of study—or, better still,

a field of interest (which would then include efforts of non-academic sectors as

well)—and as a conceptual phenomenon. In reality, both of the above styles of definingoverlap or at least open themselves to be interpreted interchangeably; hence, it is in

theory that I persuade the reader to accept the distinction. On the premise that the abovedistinction exists, I am willing to say that most available institutional definitions of EC,

12

having emerged from a retrospective view of practical initiatives, seem to respond

primarily to the role and status of EC as a field of interest (either as a course of study, asin the case of academic definitions, or as a course of action, as in non-academic ones).

Perhaps the lone, but most certainly the notable, exception to the above genre ofdefinitions is the definition given by Niklas Luhmann, which deems EC “as any

communication about the environment that seeks to bring about a change in the

structures of the communicative system that is society [original italics].”15 As one mustnotice, Luhmann’s definition captures EC on the level of epistemology (or as a

universalistic conceptual phenomenon) instead of attempting to capture the scope of whathas been written on it, who is writing about it, or how and why it should be performed.

Since I discuss Luhmann’s communicative systems theory in detail in the ensuing

chapter, I shall only briefly mention here that what makes his otherwise broad definitionspecific is its resolute social focus on one hand, and understanding of society as a system

of communications, on the other. Luhmann deems EC “a phenomenon...exclusively

internal to society,” and goes on to elaborate that[it] is not a matter of blatantly objective facts, for example, that oil-

supplies are decreasing, that the temperature of rivers is increasing, thatforests are being defoliated or that the skies and the seas are being

polluted. All this may or may not be the case. But as physical, chemical

or biological facts they create no social resonance as long as they are notthe subject of communication.16

Evidently, Luhmann definition views “nature” to be rather dependent oncommunication to be socially effective. For all that, EC is the way through which nature

can present itself to society meaningfully; communication, the only way available to the

society to create an effective social platform for nature. Either way, EC turns out to bethe society’s way of internalizing nature, or making nature its own, for the purpose of

(specific) social effects. Underlying the above definition is Luhmann’s attempt ataddressing the theme of social/nature dichotomy on the philosophical level (something

that is neglected in the pragmatic, institutional definitions of EC). Also to note here is the

fact that Luhmann’s broader theory of social systems by and large discredits the role ofindividual humans, and rejects consciousness as an important factor to (the theory of)

13

communication generally, even as it views communication as something that occurs

strictly among humans (with nature implicated and hence produced). As such, and as Iexplain in the next chapter, Luhmann’s idea of EC translates into communication among

social systems, whereas each social system by default presents itself, and is perceived as,a communicative constituent of the environment for every other equally communicative

social system.

3. Redefining EC?I enter this definitional conundrum as a humbled and reluctant participant:

Humbled by the sheer array of available, largely appropriate definitions; reluctant, onaccount of my considered view that the business of defining—in the narrow sense at

least—is far too purist to be effective or be taken seriously on the field, especially in sucha practically-oriented field that EC is. Another necessary dimension to my view on

defining EC has to do with myself being as yet an outsider to the discourse of EC, which

has been dominated by folk from the departments of communication studies. In thebackdrop of the above conditions, I approach EC politically, and shall define it in a

manner that responds both to the levels of field of interest and conceptual phenomenon.On the level of conceptual phenomenon, I mean ecological communication to

refer to any (mass or public) communication whose immediate and vital focus is a non-

human biospheric entity (or a set or sets thereof) that may or may not have a direct orindirect relevance to immediate or long-term human interests. Unlike Luhmann’s

definition, which relies upon the distinction between the broad, abstract, and ultimately

interchangeable categories of system and environment, and which roots EC self-reflexively within the anthropocentric realm, my definition accepts the established

centrality of humans and human interest and then goes on to mandate that for acommunication to qualify as EC, it must show a measure of interest in non-human

entities. In short, the defining feature for EC, as far as I am concerned, cannot lie in who

communicates (for I assume it is the humans), but what it is that a given piece or processof communication is about, and what it is that it stands to affect, and how. On that count,

to define EC as “any communication about environment [...],” as Luhmann does, perhapsgives too much undue space to humans and anthropocentric interests qua communicative

14

target insofar as environment of necessity includes humans. So, my own definition is not

necessarily truer than Luhmann’s, but I have designed it according to a felt political needon my part to undercut the breadth of the term environment by focusing on non-human

biospheric entities as the necessary thematic ingredient of any ecological communication.Another point of divergence from Luhmann lies in my rejection of inter-systemic

communication as the central point of interest. While Luhmann’s systemic framework

has its benefits (some of which are duly revealed in Stephen Fuchs’ social theory ofobjectivity), for the theory of EC I find it unrealistic and impractical to let go of the

importance of individual humans and human consciousness to communication (asLuhmann obliges us to do).17 For all that, Luhmann’s attitude toward environmentalism

can be accused of being cavalier, and his understanding of communication of being too

idealistic to be accurate. In relation to the above, his peculiar sidelining of individualhumans and consciousness from the communicative framework erroneously dilutes the

factors of human responsibility and agency with respect to the non-human sphere.

On the level of field of interest, there are, once again, a number of ways of bywhich to define EC. One would be to locate it with only a requisite regard for the

academic investment in the field. In which case, EC could be divided into: (1) Academicstudy of all kinds of communication of environmental issues; (2) Focused

communications about environmental issues that are released to the public by mass media

channels, corporations, NGOs, governments, scientific bodies, research groups, or publicinterest groups; (3) Cultural, literary, artistic, folk, and religious expressions involving

environmental themes; (4) Oral or written interpersonal communication aboutenvironmental issues.

Another way to classify EC as a field of interest would be to focus primarily on its

academic discourse in the main (as in #1 above), and secondarily also to include fieldsamples of communicative practices involving other possible sectors. As such, EC is a

field of study that cuts across the interdisciplinary academic areas of: risk, hazard,disaster, and health communications, on one hand, and science journalism, on the other.18

(An even more general list would probably include such other, broader categories as:

media studies; environmental rhetoric; ecological literature; and, cultural andenvironmental studies.) As the reader must know, most of the above are burgeoning

15

fields of inquiry in their own right; many of them, such as risk and health

communications, can even claim sufficiently long traditions of critical research. Becausethe central concepts of several of the above, such as risk, hazard, disaster, health,

science, and media do not necessarily have to include a focus on non-human biosphericphenomena, these fields of study are to be included in EC only selectively: i.e., only

when the studies done under their banners happen to include a focus on non-human

biospheric phenomena. (This is consistent with my conceptual definition of EC.)

4. EC and its InhibitionsPerhaps because EC has been brought together as an academic field of study by a

minority of North American and European departments of communication studies, its

ruling ethos appears to be overwhelmingly journalistic, field-centered, and empirical. Inrelation to the above, I would like to point out below some of the broadest assumptions

and hopes that underpin the contemporary discourse of EC and thus allow it to identify

and uphold communication as a positive value in general (with only occasional orcontextual fallibilities). Those assumptions can be said to serve as EC’s juridical loci:

i.e., as the theoretical and analytical centers regulating its internal constitution and inertia.I am not claiming here that all authors writing about EC depend upon all of the following

assumptions, nor am I claiming that any single author carries each of the following

assumptions. What I am claiming is that these assumptions constitute some of thestronger beliefs underlying the rationale of the discourse of EC as a whole, and can thus

be understood as its central tenets.

A. The Aboutness Problematic. As a mechanism, EC is being generally understood and

approached in terms of the dynamics and problematic of communicating about theenvironment. In this scenario, and on the plane of rhetoric, environment exists as an

almost extrinsic entity, followed by considerations of the effect, accuracy, or propriety of

its communication. Given this logic, EC ignores the majority of the occasions in whichenvironment and communication inhabit the same social and political pace, and thus

bypasses a variety of relevant political and social units other than forms of the media.19

Eco-sensitive critiques of the media are not immune from this problematic insofar as theyfocus on (the shortcomings of) the media rather than also examining the roles of other

16

political institutions qua institutions that may have directly affected the representation of

a given environmental issue.20

B. The Refining-Representing Nexus. In conjunction with the aboutness problematic,

the discourse of EC includes plentiful attempts advocating and encouraging refining ofcommunication about the environment. Refining communication has variously meant (1)

a stricter adherence to hard facts; (2) a firmer grasp of scientific elements relating to theenvironment; (3) non-distorting simplification of environmental science for the better

understanding of the average audience or readership; and, (4) unbiased and more “direct”

reporting of specific events. Sustaining these ideals, it is widely believed, would refineecological communication well enough for it to be useful, understandable, prone to

quicker and larger dissemination, and closer to truth. As such, the discourse of ECprivileges a predominantly pragmatic and utilitarian approach toward ecological

communication.

This pragmatic notion of forever refining or perfecting (environmental)communication privileges a mimetic view of environment and reserves a representative

role for the communicator and communication. For all practical purposes, this viewmaintains that the environment (or its disfiguring) can and should be truthfully

represented, and that it is such a representation that ought to be the motive and content of

serious communication.21 It is possible that this discursive disposition has by defaultprevented EC scholars from acknowledging (and possibly encouraging) the possibility of

a constitutive and participatory role for the media and other communicative channels

within environmentalism.

C. The "Communicator-Audience" ModalityThe dominant structure of the prevalent EC framework hinges not only on the

separation between environment and communication, but also between the communicator

and the audience or readership. However, positions taken typically speak, as it were, onbehalf of the communicator such that facilitating communication effectively means

facilitating the communicator, discussing problems in environmental reporting means

discussing problems of the environmental reporter, celebrating victories oraccomplishments of such reporting means celebrating those of the reporter. In other

17

words, a place of articulation precedes the above positions. As such, many authors have

tended to identify themselves with the “communicator” from the beginning to the end,thereby preventing themselves from imagining ecological communication as a

polyphonic field.This strand is strongly noticeable, for example, in Richard Beamish, Getting the

Word Out in the Fight to Save the Earth (1995), Mark Neuzil & William Kovarik, Mass

Media and Environmental Conflict: America’s Green Crusades (1996), and MichaelFrome, Green Ink: An Introduction to Environmental Journalism (1998). As Beamish

provides us with rhetorical and mechanical guidelines for mass communicatingenvironmental issues with effectiveness, Neuzil and Kovarik detail and uphold the pro-

active role of the mass media through the history of environmental conflict in America

from the mid-19th century to the 1960s. In a similar vein—of zealous embrace of one’senvironmental prerogative—Frome outlines the role of environmental journalists as

follows:

[W]e ought to be advocates for the health and safety of the planet,professionally and personally concerned with global warming, acid rain,

destruction of tropical and temperate forests, loss of wilderness andwildlife, toxic wastes, pollution of air and water, and population pressures

that degrade the quality of life.22

The above trends are confirmed in Lee Wilkins’s futuristic profile of research oncommunication of catastrophes. Wilkins points out that “the paths for further

research...center on three basic questions:”(a) What is the optimal role of the mass media in warning and mitigations;

(b) how do the mass media convey information about risks, and how

might they be employed in both natural and technological disasters; and(c) how might the mass media, at least in a democratic society, more

accurately reflect the series of choices that disasters and technologicalaccidents pose both to individuals and the social and political systems.23

The privileging of the professional communicator within the analytical framework

(of EC) is also witnessed in literatures related to science communication or journalism,except that the scientist here shares the podium (sometimes competes for it), so to speak,

18

with the reporter.24 Rather predictably, the literature of EC is rife with lines of inquiries

such as the following: How best to communicate (presumably complex) concernsrelating to the environment to the public at large? What problems are encountered in the

process of this communication? What politics or scientific disputes does anenvironmental journalist or reporter get caught into while discharging his or her duties?

How to determine empirically public’s awareness of a particular environmental

issue—what methodologies to employ, how to draw conclusions from such a study forimproving a given environmental communication?, etc.

5. New AvenuesFresh avenues for the mainstream discourse of EC are to be located in those

efforts and possibilities where the professional communicator—the journalist, or thescientist—does not have to be the hero. Ecological communication also needs to be

understood and located in its moments of denial, repression, and hijack—rather than

merely in its positivistic presences or their specific distortions.Some of the above alternatives are found in the formulations and observations of

an otherwise neglected report produced by Centre d’Estudis d’Informació Ambiental (forthe benefit of the European Environment Agency) on one hand, and in the

communication systems theory of EC furnished by Luhmann, on the other.25 While the

European report is notable for its innovative twist to almost all of the erstwhileorthodoxies within EC, its linking of ecological communication with development, and

for its overtly global focus, systems theory is pertinent for its effective marginalization of

the media. Because the European report is of immediate interest, I shall introduce it firstbelow, and devote the next chapter to the implications of the systems theory. My

subsequent chapter focuses on the role and status of technological forms in relation toecological communication, while the last one is on the 1998 Indian nuclear tests as an

episode in dubious ecological communication orchestrated by the Indian nation-state.

Both the last two chapters demonstrate ways out of EC’s claustrophobic focus on themass media, and as such are to be considered as early steps toward its political

philosophy.

19

6. Global Development, New Information Technology, and EcologicalCommunication: Centre d’Estudis d’Informació Ambiental’s “A NewModel of Environmental Communication for Europe: From Consumptionto Use of Information”

Released in 1999, and prepared by the Centre d’Estudis d’Informació Ambiental(CEIA), the European Environment Agency’s report #13 is a comprehensive attempt at

re-orienting Europe’s eco-communicative practices. The report is important for the

following reasons: (1) It is one of the first formal policy statements prepared in behalf ofa regional, intergovernmental agency on the future of ecological communication (another

one seems to have been prepared by the government of Vietnam);26 (2) It presumes adirect linkage between development and EC, while viewing information for its possible

role in sustainability; (3) It is very clearly rooted in the ethos of the 1990s globalization

and information revolution, and is informed by the intellectual and populist discoursesthat have emanated from it; (4) Because it targets a regional block of nations, the report

by default retains relevance for the issue of the role of nation-states in EC, something thatI believe needs to be addressed in the discourse.

Before discussing its contents, I would like to mention that the English version of

the report is rather poorly edited—and/or is a poor translation; wherefore, on occasions,and for the sake of clarity, I have had to take the liberty to substitute some words from

the original account with their more appropriate counterparts in my direct quotationsfrom the report below. (I have put such changes within the customary parenthesis.)

a. What the Report Rejects: Linearity; Consumption of Information;Institutionalized Media; Info-elitism and Seclusion; Information/ActionDisconnect; and Technological Primitivism

The CEIA critiques and rejects the “traditional model”—which is really anothername for what it views, based upon its research, to be the mainstream framework of mass

communication generally, of mass communication of environmental issues specifically,and of mass communication of environmental issues within Europe even more

specifically. As such, the traditional model

is characterized by its partiality, sensationalism, and...inability totransform information into decisive, meaningful, and rational action.

20

Communication processes linked to this model have a non-specialised,

general character, and are defined by production routines of daily newsand by generation and transmission of information (knowledge) in a

fragmented and linear way. At the same time, the criteria adopted forselection of the news are directly related to the impact value.27

We should not brush aside the above as yet another rehash of the critique of

commercial media: The CEIA has unique findings, explanations, and interpretations toprovide in support of the above characterization (which I shall outline further below). I

would like first to underline that the point of departure for the report is the desire to gobeyond a mere provision of information, environmental or otherwise, to environmental

activism. That is because “[t]he increase in information in the last decades has not been

able to stop environmental degradation, and...has even [accelerated the degradation].”28

The question, then, that the CEIA poses to itself is not necessarily about how to add to

existing information, but how to transform it into “meaningful knowledge” about the

environment and the prospect of its improvement.29 In the second instance, whatconcerns the CEIA in the end is how to go beyond the older way of looking at

environmental communication (in Europe) that has been based upon a “traditionaldivision between supply/demand” for environmental information “among expert

communicators”—and to evolve a composite and internally complementary view of

groups and people at large that may be involved in a given environmental event.30

The traditional model of information and communication, which the CEIA has

sought to reject, is understood to exhibit the following features (or lacunae):• a general shortage of environmental information (within the overall sphere of mass

communication);31

• a prevalence of reporting and communicative approaches that neither integrate norinteract with the variety of social groups that may be related to a given environmental

issue;• ineffective channelling of environmental information;32

• an over-reliance on the “written word” despite the evidence to suggest that audio-visual

media have more way with the (European) public,33 and the fact that it is risky to relyheavily on just one communicative means for (mass) communication;34

21

• a prevalence of institutional journalism within environmental communication, which

prioritizes political leaders and public administrators over scientists, NGOs, or privatebodies as sources of (environmental) information;35

• insufficient training of reporters at covering environmental news, with all its“uncertainties and assumptions,” and a resultant journalistic “[d]ependence on scientific

and official interpretations of environmental issues as sources;”36

• generation and dissemination of “fragmented and partial information”—owing tojournalists’ space and time constraints relative to the environmental events;37

• prioritization of the national over the local in environmental news business;38

• journalistic neglect of the power and possibilities of the Internet, on one hand,39 and

usurpation of the Internet by the traditional media, on the other, for linear delivery of

information;40

• a focus on the “the effects of environmental problems” at the expense of an equal focus

on “their causes;”41

• perhaps an inadvertent marginalization or eclipsing of environmental news byjournalistic usage of conventional communicative frames;42

• constraining and straining of (environmental) reporters by institutional and corporate(or market-driven) demands placed upon them, and because of their “weak interaction

with the public;”43

• European Community’s neglect of mass communication of issues related to theenvironment and “sustainability,” and its targeting of “specialised groups of producers

and users of environmental information” as part of erstwhile efforts at improving“environmental information and education;”44

• a complete neglect of the mass media from the purview of the objective of

environmental information dissemination enshrined in the Fifth Environmental ActionProgramme, known as “Towards Sustainability,” approved on February 1, 1993;45 and,

• constraining of environmental mass communication in Europe “by...sharp national andregional differences.”46

b. What the Report Proposes: Access; Democratic Action; and, Usage

22

In order to address each one of the above deficiencies, the CEIA proposes for

environmental communication “a “new model...based on interactivity, participation,plurality of sources and opinions, [variegated] representations of reality, and elimination

of space, time, and variability constraints.”47 Information, of course, has a very importantrole to play in this model; however, what is even more important are the ways through

which it is disseminated and received, and whether and how it is accessed and put to use.

The dynamics of information channelling are deemed significant to the protection of theenvironment in a very fundamental way insofar as “life can be thought to depend on the

consumption of external resources and on the information that [an] organism needs toobtain those resources.”48 As such, development is viewed as a “function of...energy and

information,” and “sustainability” as the way to minimize the use of energy and resources

through the maximal “use of information and knowledge.”49 In the backdrop of theabove, the CEIA declares “adequate, fast, and accessible communication networks” to be

essential for “the improvement of the environment and sustainability standards.”50

On the macroeconomic level, the CEIA rests its optimism upon the above linkagebetween information and development by arguing that

better information should allow economic agents located in differentplaces to produce their outputs with a more environmentally sound use of

natural resources, to improve their access to more efficient technologies,

and to implement the latest standards of environmental quality.51

Hence, the report also advocates “indicating the means by which markets can improve

their performance simultaneously in relation to their economic, social and ecologicalgoals.”52 On the most general level, the CEIA argues for transforming “information for

consumption to information for use,” which it believes can happen only if information is

clearly linked to action and is thus turned into “powerful knowledge.”53 Such atransformation is also necessary because ordinarily “[m]ore information can augment

one’s capability to escape individually and result in more opportunities ‘to flee ratherthan fight.’”54

1. Action, Interaction, Utility, Participation, and...well, the Internet!

23

Interactivity, participation, and plurality of sources through the production of

news or information are expected to reorient the public’s conventional (and perceived)role as consumers to users of environmental information. As such, the CEIA also places

a high value on the hitherto neglected utilitarian aspect of information provision, stronglyadvocating linking of “information to options, and contexts to action,” and involving “all

the social agents (communicators, public, and decision-makers) in the generation and

transmission processes of environmental information.”55 The information revolution ofthe 1990s is one of the very conditions of possibility for the proposed new model, and the

CEIA’s trust in the prospect of Internet’s progressive and canny usage is very strong: Infact, it lies at the heart of its advocacy for interactivity and participation in mass

communication. Wherefore:

In the new model, communication is found in the form of virtualcommunities, newsgroups, electronic information platforms, telematic

networks or digital systems where all the actors of environmental

information meet, interact and participate to generate and transmitinformation that responds to their needs and induces action-taking.56

In view of the report’s strong insistence upon using the Internet and associatednew media technologies, some might wonder whether it was not already a little outdated

at the time of its publication (given that those technologies had already become

fashionable within the global information sphere). In response to that hypotheticalprospect, I would like to mention that the novelty of the report in the above respect lies in

its promotion of those technologies in specific reference to environmentalcommunication; plus, there is a lot more to the report, as should be obvious from the

forgoing discussion, than its centralization of multimedia and the Internet.

2. Whither the Communicator?The CEIA takes the above vision of mass communication of environmental issues

to appreciable philosophical heights by redefining the roles for both the (environmental)reporter or journalist and the environmental activist: In a sense, the CEIA’s advice is that

the two become a little more of each other in order to foster a healthier, more useful, andaction-oriented environment for environmental communication. In the new model, the

24

information professional—typically the journalist or reporter—“is not the protagonist of

the news anymore.”57 Instead:He or she must mediate a dialogue between the real generators and

transmitters of the news: the different social actors involved thatparticipate in the news [on the basis of] their own and personal identities

and interpretations of reality.58

Conversely, “the new environmental worker” should be prepared and willing to develop“methodologies to spread environmental information, by combining interpersonal and

informal means of communication with new developments in informationtechnologies.”59 “These methodologies and techniques,” the report goes on to argue,

“should aim at the integration of the plurality of environmental information,

understanding, and knowledge [for the sake of general intelligibility].”60

The new environmental journalist, per CEIA suggested criteria, should also be

close to their audiences, sources, the news, the event, and even decision-making—instead

of having to “interpret the facts or data through the reports of other actors close to theevent.”61 The proximity so desired is meant in both spatial and temporal terms; actually,

it is also meant in the human terms—insofar as “[h]ow close and personal the contact isto the audiences will greatly determine the possibility of understanding and quality of

environmental information.”62 As such, the CEIA’s view of objectivity is also rather

unconventional: Its research and surveys suggest that the “notion of objectivity...dependson the assumptions about the production of knowledge and the beliefs and meanings

attached to it by the institutions and the professionals who work in it.”63 Therefore, the“objective content of environmental information” at “the level of mass

communication...can only be validated by the interaction of different and visible ‘truth

sources’ with their attendant audiences.”64 This is because “[e]ach audience and contextclaims its own legitimate sources of truth and expresses in a particular language of

motives.”65

For all that, the report seems to shift the focus from objectivity to adequacy of

environmental information, which it believes “can be evaluated by [measuring] the

degree to which [a given piece of information] integrates the diverse points of view atstake, in each social context by an open procedure.”66 The report goes even further in

25

undercutting orthodox views about both objectivity and (environmental) communication

by underlining the practical dimension of this whole issue, whereasthe amount of information to deal with a given environmental problem

might be sufficient, but the human resources and social structuresnecessary to understand and transform this information into practical

knowledge and action might not be enough.67

The CEIA thus lays emphasis on integration attainable throughinteraction—especially through the use of the new Internet and multimedia technologies

and a mastery of their idiom, as it were. That is because those technologies “[confer] tocommunication processes a horizontal, hyper-medial, and hyper-textual capacity, while

increasing levels of diversity of sources and empowering social stakeholders in the

informative dynamics.”68 Moreover, the above technologies positively affect theproposed drives for localization of the news, communicative speed, contextual proximity,

and enhancement of the layperson’s participation in the communicative process.69

In such a scenario, interpretation, otherwise a negative ideal within mainstreamjournalistic community, comes through as an enlightened democratizing tool:

It is only by a context-oriented social selection and interpretation ofenvironmental information that knowledge and understanding about these

kinds of issues could be shared adequately among large sectors of society,

instead of being [restricted] to only a technical elite of environmentalspecialists and corporations.70

In line with the above spirit—of democratization, activism, and encouragement of publicusage of information—the report also floats the idea of developing “new professions and

institutions [that would be invested in translating] complex information into intelligible,

discussible, and attractive issues[...].”71

3. IntegrationThe CEIA’s stress on integration does have something to do with the well-known

democratic argument, but it also has as much to do with its penchant for an efficient,

result- and action-oriented information sphere operable as a connected system.Integration is deemed important in light of erstwhile disconnect between information

26

strategies and action-plans of public agencies invested in dissemination in Europe.

Whereas, the report laments that many media campaigns were “launched before thenecessary institutional and technological arrangements” had been “sufficiently set

up”—leading to “public disappointment and distrust.”72 That said, the CEIA seeks theintegration not only between the bureaucrat and the citizen, or the journalist and the

activist (as mentioned previously), but also between corporations and the public:

An integrated approach to environmental information means thatcorporations would work with citizens to achieve common sustainability

goals while citizens would be allowed to enter into corporate decisions forthe same reason.”73

Such a close cooperation is sought and promoted between the two traditional aliens

because “[p]ublic understanding and intervention in corporate risky decisions is essentialto avoid the worst of the outcomes of large-scale potential accidents.”74 And for that

reason, the CEIA also promotes “[p]ublic debate and accountability...as a basis for the

improvement of safety and sustainability”—rejecting their perceived status or role “as athreat to corporate power.”75

4. Practical Steps: Media Labs; Innovative Social CommunicationMethods; New Information Technologies; Public Forums; and RegionalDirectories

The CEIA concludes by advocating to “integrate different strategies from

different institutions through interactive, open, interpersonal, and democratic procedures

between producers and consumers of information.”76 This general objective bringsenvironmental communication even closer to the goal—and, in some sense, ideology—of

sustainability in that integration is expected to “help individuals and social groups defineand express more closely what sustainability and environmental information mean to

them in their own personal contexts.”77 The prospect of a chaotic pluralism therein is

diluted by the hope that as “abstract issues such as ‘sustainability’...acquire a deepermeaning in personal experiences, new ideas in relation to remedial and preventive

societal actions might also...arise.”78

The report attests to some of the above effects by detailing the achievements ofsuch early European and global initiatives as the Global City Platform, the Association

27

for the Progress of Communications (APC), and the Earth Negotiations Bulletin of the

International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD).79 For the future, the reportrecommends

• establishing locally operated “media laboratories”—or environmental communicationresearch centers—that would “study, develop, test and implement new communicative

systems that fit the requirements” of the model of environmental information exchange

that the report proposes.80

• “promoting the use [and accessibility] of New Information Technologies and

specialised media products on sustainability and environmental issues;”81

• “building and promoting...regular (virtual) forums for discussion, assessment and

dissemination of environmental information between formal and non-formal sectors of

society;” 82

• publishing “local and regional directories” on “professionals working in the field of

environmental information and communication.” 83

5. A Note of Reflection On the whole, what sort of a role does the European report accord to EC? Thereare a number of layers to the context of the report’s origin, which need to be reminisced

briefly in order to allow me to answer the above question. Coming as it did at the end of

the 1990s, the report can be seen as an attempt at capitalizing the twin forces of theInternet revolution and ecological sensibility for the unification of Europe: in the

backdrop of the continuing enhancement of the European Union to the former Eastern

bloc. Given the image and status of Eastern European countries as both under-developedand polluting, and the secondary status of Europe behind the United States, Japan, and

South Korea on the front of global Internet connectivity and usage, it should come aslittle surprise to find an articulate attempt that addresses the above issues all at once in the

form of EC.

As such, EC comes off as the most promising and potent way to connect the new,old Europe: It appears to pluck the best from both the post-industrial mode of

industrialization (in the form of all that goes with the virtual revolution) and theconventional mode of development (by way of underlining the idea of a pan-European

28

sustainability). Insofar as the report projects future EC as a participatory mode of

mediated informationalizing about the environment/development, it also shows the wayto putting eco-reporting, as it were, into the hands of the citizen (or, better still, mouse!).

However, while this participatory aspect does give us a view that is different from thedominant framework within the academic discourse (and even within the journalistic

practice) of EC, the report itself retains a problem-solving, activistic approach that is

generally consistent with the ideology of economic development.A curious contrast to the above, and hence a neglected alternative to the dominant

discourse of EC, is found in Luhmann’s theory of EC. Luhmann’s overriding purpose isto theorize or philosophize about EC, in which case he serves as an exception (especially

since he does not give the media any more than it is its due); however, he also upholds

strong, positivistic ideals about the future of humanity. In the following chapters, Idiscuss and evaluate Luhmann’s theory in connection with Gregory Bateson’s ideas

linking ecology and communication, and as part of the larger ethos of the early origins of

information theory, cybernetics, systems research, and computerization. Theforthcoming discussions shall be helpful in deciding what paths to pursue for the future

theorization and analysis of EC.

Notes1 Niklas Luhmann’s Ecological Communication (1986) can be understood as a lengthydefinition of EC as a phenomenon; however, few can be persuaded to call it acomprehensive survey of EC literatures. See Luhmann, Ecological Communication, tr.John Bednarz, Jr., The University of Chicago Press, 1989. First published 1986.2 Andrew Pleasant, Jennifer Good, James Shanahan, and Brad Cohen, “The Literature ofEnvironmental Communication,” Public Understanding of Science, 11: 2002, p. 197.3Ibid.4 Ibid, p. 205.5 Ibid, p. 204.6 Such a journal has since been established, and is titled Environmental CommunicationYearbook. A previous related journal is the Applied Environmental Education andCommunication, which is partly supported by the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment. In a sense, however, some older environmental magazines such as theEcologist (UK), Down to Earth (India), Sanctuary (India), National Geographic (USA),and Discovery (USA) can be said to be fulfilling the purpose of environmentalcommunication in the non-academic realm.7 See, for example, the homepages of: Northern Arizona University’s EnvironmentalCommunication Resource Center’s (ECRC): http://www.comm.nau.edu/ecrc/philo.htm;Environmental Communication Network (ECN): http://www.esf.edu/ecn/whatisec.htm;

29

the Rutgers University’s Center for Environmental Communication (CEC):http://www.aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec/home.html; University of Cincinnati’s Center forEnvironmental Communication Studies (CECS): http://uc.eduu/cecs/cecs.html.8A Google search for “environmental communication” on the Internet leads one to a largenumber of corporate sites, the majority of them, as of 2003, belonging to Japanesecorporations. Many North American, South East Asian, and European firms have alsoput up links specifically devoted to environmental communication relating to theirproducts and services, and have also created administrative units dealing specifically withEC. Other non-academic bodies that have put up EC sites include: consulting andinvestment firms (such as Anthonissen & Associates, or ; NGOs; associations (such asthe Associated British Ports); IGOs (such as the European Environment Agency); mediaand advertising firms (such as envision environmental communication, GreenbraeEnvironmental, MUST, Vox Bandicoot, or eco); governmental units (such as the NationalWater Commission of Mexico, or the Environmental Protection Department of Latvia);journalistic networks (such as the Asian Federation of Environmental Journalists, or theEnvironmental Communication Asia Network), etc.9 Visit: http://www.comm.nau.edu/ecrc/philo.htm10 Ibid.11 Visit: http://www.esf.edu/ecn/whatisec.htm12 Visit: http://www.aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec/home.html13 Visit: http://uc.eduu/cecs/cecs.html14 Ibid.15 Niklas Luhmann, Ecological Communication, p. 28.16 Ibid.17 Stephen Fuchs, “A Social Theory of Objectivity,” Beyond the Science Wars: TheMissing Discourse about Science and Society, Ullica Segerstrale (ed.), Suny Series inScience and Society, State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 2000, pp.155-177.18 See, for example: Peter M. Sandman, David B. Sanchsman, Michael R. Greenberg,Michael Gochfeld, Environmental Risk and the Press: An Exploratory Assessment,Transaction Books: New Brunswick, USA & Oxford, UK, 1987; Renne J. Johnson &Michael J. Scicchitano, “Uncertainty, Risk, Trust, and Information: Public Perceptionsof Environmental Issues and Willingness to take Action,” Policy Studies Journal, 28: 3,2003, pp. 633-647; Paul Slovic, The Perception of Risk, Risk, Society, and Policy Series,ed. Ragnar E. Lofstedt, Earthscan Publications: London & Sterling, Virginia, 2000;Sharon Dunwoody, Science Journalists: A Study of Factors Affecting the Selection ofNews at a Scientific Meeting, PhD Dissertation, School of Journalism, IndianaUniversity, December 1978; Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, Carol L. Rogers(eds.), Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, Issues in S&T Series, TheAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, The Free Press: New York,1986; David Jarmul (ed.), Headline News, Science Views, National Academy Press:Washington, D. C., 1991; David Jarmul (ed.), Headline News, Science Views, NationalAcademy Press: Washington, D. C., 1993; Marcel C. La Follette, Making Science OurOwn: Public Images of Science (1910-1955), The University of Chicago Press: Chicago& London, 1990.

30

19 Important exceptions to this tenet include cultural studies of EC, such as: Stuart Allan,Barbara Adam, & Cynthia Carter (eds.), Environmental Risks and the Media, Routledge:London & New York, 2000; Graham Chapman, Keval Kumar, Caroline Fraser, & IvorGaber, Environmentalism and the Mass Media: The North-South Divide, Routledge:London & New York, 1997;20 See, for example: Conrad Smith, Media and Apocalypse: New Coverage of theYellowstone Forest Fires, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, and Loma Prieta Earthquake,Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 1992.21 See, for example: Bernadette West, Peter M. Sandman, Michael R. Greenberg, TheReporter’s Environmental Handbook, Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NewJersey, 1995; M. Granger Morgan, Baruch Fischoff, Ann Bostrom, Cynthia J. Atman,Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK, 2002.22 Michael Frome, Green Ink: An Introduction to Environmental Journalism, Universityof Utah Press: Salt Lake City, 1998, p. ix.23 Lee Wilkins, ““Conclusion: Accidents will Happen,” Bad Tidings: Communicationand Catastrophe, eds. Lynne Masel Walters, Lee Wilkins, and Tim Walters, L.Erlbaum: Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1989, p. 171.24 See, for example, Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, Carol L. Rogers (eds.),Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (1986). Inherent valorization ofscientists and technologists as communicators is found in David Jarmul (ed.), HeadlineNews, Science Views, 1991 & 1993. See also Susan L. Allen’s rather unusual appeal tofellow anthropologists to become more active as public communicators and mediaeducators: “The Anthropologist as Media Anthropologist,” Media Anthropology:Informing Global Citizens, Susan L. Allen (ed.), Bergin & Garvey: Westport,Connecticut & London, England, 1994.25 Centre d’Estudis d’Informació Ambiental, “A New Model of EnvironmentalCommunication for Europe: From Consumption to Use of Information,” EnvironmentalIssue, Report # 13, European Environment Agency: Barcelona, Spain, July 21, 1999, pp.1-64. Available at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/92-9167-125-8/en/page001.html/index_html_RLR

Notable, also, is Mercedes Escamilla’s policy essay “Communication as Part ofan Environmental Strategy on Water,” Oficina de Communicación del Lago de Chapala.”Visit: http://www.iwrn.net/mexescam.htm. The document does not indicate when it waswritten or published (it is also not paginated on the Internet); the internal referencessuggest that it might have been published in or after 1996. Escamilla situates the politicsof water management within the context of sustainable development and communication,arguing that

sustainable development cannot be achieved exclusively throughcampaigns or slogans, but complementary efforts are need in terms ofcommunication, provision of information, and peoples’ participation.

Escamilla also argues:Communication should be considered...an essential requirement in termsof coordinating and forging the interrelationships and linkages betweenwater professionals, users, organizations, media, and the general public as

31

a whole. It should be viewed as an important means of interactionbetween all the different parties associated with the total watermanagement process.

I have chosen not to discuss the above essay in detail because Escamilla by andlarge carries an educative view of communication: i.e., communication as a way toeducate the public about health issues related, let us say, to water supply. As such,Escamilla’s approach retains the positivistic stance of most EC approaches.26 See Vietnam National Environment Agency, “Environmental Communication inVietnam,” http://www-scf-usc.edu/~msilverm/vn-envimmasscom.htm27“A New Model of Environmental Communication for Europe: From Consumption toUse of Information,” p. 5.28 Ibid, p. 4.29 Ibid.30 Ibid, p. 6.31 The report cites the findings from its “Environmental Barometer performed betweenOctober 1997 and June 1998, based on the daily study of 10 Spanish newspapers,” which

demonstrated that the average percentage of surface devoted toenvironmental issues in the studied newspapers during those ninemonths—was 2.3%, (with a variation of 0.7), of the total surface of printedinformation. This figure was only surpassed in specific moments, such asthe celebration of the Climate Summit in Kyoto or the impact provoked bywastewater spills in the National Park of Donana.

Ibid, p. 8.32 Ibid, p. 18.33 Ibid, p. 12.34Whereas:

The labelling of processes and events as environmental issues and thewords used to convey importance of those issues, can amplify, disguise oreven completely manipulate the content and the context of the informationprovided. The representation of the issue is mostly dependent on thespecific use of words than can be finally identified by the audiences orreaders as their own language.

Ibid, pp. 23-24.And, so: “Language has to be supported by other elements such as graphics, images,video and audio,” Ibid, p. 24.35 Ibid, pp. 9, 10.36 Ibid, p. 25.37 Ibid, p. 18.38 Ibid, p. 16.39 Whereas:

only 7% of those polled by the CEIA choose Internet as the maincommunication route to be promoted for supply of environmentalinformation. The majority continues to think that efforts should bedirected towards increasing the number of environmental articles ingeneral press (29%), the number of discussions with experts in audio-

32

visual media, television or radio (20%), or the number of specialisedprogrammes (19%).

Ibid, p. 13.40Ibid, pp. 26, 27.41 Ibid, p. p. 22.42“For instance, production indicators and prices on main prime resources come under“economic information”; the construction of a new highway or the expansion of aharbour appear in the “transport” news; while urban pollution from private vehicles isunder the label of “environment,” Ibid, p. 23.43 Ibid, p. 29.44 Those efforts include

among others, the Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment of1985, the 1988 Resolution on Environmental Education, the CORINEprogramme of 1985-1991, the creation of the European Environmentagency agreed in 1990, and the Directive on Freedom of Access toEnvironmental Information of 1990.

Ibid, p. 30.45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Ibid, p. 1.48 Ibid, p. 32.49 Ibid, p. 32.50 Ibid.51 Ibid, p. 33.52 Ibid, p. 32.53 Ibid, p. 32.54 Ibid, p. 41.55 Ibid, p. 39.56 Ibid, p. 40.57 Ibid, p. 39.58 Ibid.59 Ibid, p. 43.60 Ibid.61 Ibid, p. 36.62 Ibid, p. 36.63 Ibid, p. 35.64 Ibid, pp. 35-36.65 Ibid.66 Ibid, p. 36.67 Ibid, pp. 36-37.68 Ibid, p. 5.69 Ibid, p. 21.70 Ibid, p. 42.71 Ibid, p. 43.72 Ibid, p. 40.

33

73 Ibid, p. 33.74 Ibid, p. 33.75 Ibid, pp. 33-34.76 Ibid, p. 40.77 Ibid.78 Ibid.79 Ibid, pp. 44-45.80 Ibid, p. 56.81 Ibid.82 Ibid.83 Ibid.